Monday, 31 October 2016

The media obsesses
over whether Clinton might have sent an email containing confidential
information from her personal account while secretary of state, and
also wonders about whether Trump tells lies, pays any taxes, bribes
officials and assaults women. Anyone who reads these stories can see
that there is no equivalence here. But anyone who just reads the
headlines would be tempted to think otherwise. The very fact that
commentators think a renewed focus on these emails is ‘bad for
Clinton’ acknowledges that many people are indeed just reading the
headlines. That context matters.

Glenn Greenwald
suggests
that when Paul Krugman and others make similar points, they are
suggesting Clinton should have “a scrutiny-free march into the
White House”. But I think this misunderstands Krugman’s point.
Impressions matter, particularly just before an election. If the
media spend as much time discussing possible Clinton misdemeanors as
those of Trump the impression you give is that they are of equal
importance. By balancing things that are very different, you create an equivalence that is completely misleading. Failure to
take that into account still might have disastrous consequences.

I do not think this
is just a problem with the media. Whenever I talk about the false
accusation that Labour profligacy caused austerity, I get people
commenting that it is not really false because Labour did overspend.
This is true, and it was for this reason that I originally talked
about a myth based on a half-truth. A half-truth is a
statement that conveys only part of the truth, especially one used
deliberately in order to mislead someone. But in political terms that
concedes too much. If there hadn’t been a recession and the
Coalition had had to undo Labour's fiscal excess, I doubt if anyone
besides the IFS would have noticed and no one would not have called
that correction austerity.

Yet
even when I make this point, someone still objects that Labour bears
some responsibility because they should have seen the recession
coming, or that they were responsible for the lack of financial
regulation that allowed the global financial crisis to have such a
large impact on the UK. While those claims should be discussed in some contexts,
they are beside the point when discussing Conservative charges against Labour. When Conservatives
claim that Labour profligacy caused austerity, there is an implicit clause that says ‘and it would not have happened if we were in charge’. The
context is who would be better at managing the economy. If the
context was an article about the performance in absolute terms of the
Labour government those caveats would be appropriate (although both
can easily be challenged), but when the context is clearly about the
relative competence of Labour and Conservatives they are not.

When
a political party makes a claim, or for press coverage during an
election period, everything is relative. In a sense it is a bit like
voting. Anyone who says they cannot vote for X because X did or will
do something do not understand the game they are in. Voting is about
comparisons: not whether X is good in some absolute sense, but
whether X is better or worse than Y. So to say, as Ed Miliband
sometimes did in defending Labour against the profligacy charge, that
Labour perhaps were at fault for not regulating enough, he did
himself no favours because he was talking out of context. Compared to
the Conservatives he has nothing to apologise
for on that front.

We
can see this clearly if we think about consequences. The consequence
of the US media spending so much time on the relatively trivial issue
of emails is that US voters think they can trust Donald Trump more
than Hillary Clinton. The consequence of Ed Miliband apologising
about not regulating finance enough when defending Labour against
profligacy claims is to appear to concede that in some sense the
Conservatives were more competent than Labour. Context matters, and ignoring it has consequences.

Postscript (4/11/16) Since writing this I have been surprised by how many on the left seem happy to parrot the idea that the email affair is potentially serious. Here is Matthew Yglesias with a comprehensive account. It has also become clear that the latest news from the FBI tells us more about the FBI than Clinton.

Saturday, 29 October 2016

In a recent post
I talked about the “neoliberal fantasists who voted Leave”. Here
is Ryan Bourne from the influential Institute of Economic Affairs. He
notes that “the mood music from the post-referendum Conservative
party — with former Remain backers in No 10 and the Home
Office overcompensating with a caricatured view of what voters
want — is not a good sign for the short-term”. But he still
believes that Brexit can be transformed into some kind of neoliberal
wet dream, with a bonfire of regulations and a unilateral abolition
of UK tariffs on trade.

The economics of
this was always fantasy, as John Van Reenen and colleagues
painstakingly demonstrate here,
but it also seems politically naive. After all the Leave campaign was
a success largely because it promised to control immigration as a
result of leaving the EU, controls which are distinctly
anti-neoliberal. Controlling immigration is not a caricature of what
the majority of Leave voters wanted, but instead what most were
voting for. It does seem naive to believe that a government after
Brexit would try and quietly forget about this, particularly when led
by someone who had spent the previous 6 years trying and failing to
control immigration. It also seems naive to imagine that this turn
against neoliberalism would not go beyond immigration.

And yet, the
‘southern
strategy’ was highly successful for the Republican
party in the US. This combined an economic policy that favoured
finance and corporates, increased inequality and free markets with an
identity politics that appealed to race, religion and cultural
identity. (I could perhaps add geographical identity here as well:
see this article
by David Wong.) Perhaps the UK party of the right could follow a
similar course, using immigration as a substitute (and for some a
proxy) for race, whilst pursuing an otherwise neoliberal agenda?

Is this what the Conservative party tried to do under Cameron and
Osborne? Actually I think that is the wrong question, for reasons I
will come to shortly. In terms of what the Coalition government
actually did, Jonathan Portes summarises
it thus:

“The promise to cut net migration to the “tens of thousands”
was generally regarded by immigration policy experts as unachievable,
or achievable only at an economic cost no sensible government was
willing to pay. In practice, the latter course was never tested:
resistance from within government from the Department of Business,
supported to a greater or lesser extent by the Treasury, meant that
even non-EU migration was only reduced very substantially for non-HE
students; for most other routes it has stabilised. Non-EU net
migration is currently about 150,000 a year, slightly higher than EU
net migration

This does not mean the policy changes had no impact: the increase in
the regulatory burden on business and the education sector has been
substantial, and has certainly resulted in some reduction in skilled
and student migration. The most damaging single decision was probably
the closing of the Post-Study Work Route. However, overall, any
economic damage was considerably mitigated.”

Of course that resistance from the Department of Business came from a
Liberal Democrat, Vince Cable, and not a Conservative. Which leaves
open the possibility that the economic damage from attempts to hit
the immigration target might have been greater if just the
Conservatives had been in power. So it is not clear that the
Conservative focus on immigration was just so they could win
elections with zero cost to their more neoliberal objectives. It
still remains the case that, just as Trump exposed the flaw
in the Republican’s southern strategy, so Brexit was the critical
flaw in Cameron’s emphasis on the problem of immigration and his
failure to meet his own targets.

I said it was the wrong question, because I think in this case it was
not a political party that was calling the shots but a section of the
print media: the right wing tabloids. As Andy Beckett writes in this
comprehensive history of this part of the UK media:

“[Brexit] was an outcome for which the tabloids had campaigned
doggedly for decades, but never more intensely – or with less
factual scrupulousness – than this spring and summer, when the
front pages of the Sun, Mail and Express bellowed for Brexit, talking
up Britain’s prospects afterwards, in deafening unison, day after
day. Two days before the referendum, the Sun gave over its first 10
pages to pro-Brexit coverage.”

And the principle means the tabloids used to obtain this result was
the “endless xenophobic nudges of its immigration coverage.” Of
course these newspapers will say they were just expressing their
readers fears, but when they are reduced to making up stories to
encourage this fear any claim to innocence becomes very hollow.
Fueling anti-immigration feeling was their version of a southern
strategy, and Brexit saw its culmination.

Having achieved this objective, will the tabloids start ignoring the
immigration issue, enabling the greater immigration and zero tariffs
that Mr. Bourne desires? Or will the influence of these tabloids,
perhaps now greater than it has ever been, start to fade away? To the
extent that these seem silly questions reveals the political naivety
of the neoliberal Leavers. It is highly unlikely that Theresa May
will become squeamish about damaging business through immigration controls to enable her to meet
her immigration target. The best hope of those who do not want to go
down this path is that, as Jonathan Portes expects,
the Brexit vote itself starts to reduce the immigration numbers.

Brexit will also put other pressures on May which are likely to move
her away from neoliberal policies, as the assurances given to Nissan
indicate. As Bourne writes
in a recent blog: “if this is a commitment to permanent or
semi-permanent support to almost ‘make up for’ changed trade
arrangements then it is hugely misguided.” Misguided it may be, but
that is the direction the politics will push a Prime Minister
determined to be seen as making a success of Brexit. Just as
Republican’s have agonised
over how to deal with Donald Trump, so it will become clear to UK
neoliberals the damage to their cause that Brexit will generate.

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Noah Smith has an
article
that talks about Paul Romer’s recent critique
of macroeconomics. In my view he gets it broadly right, but with one
important exception that I want to pursue here. He says the
fundamental problem with macroeconomics is lack of data, which is why
disputes seem to take so long to resolve. That is not in my view the
whole story.

If we look at the
rise of Real Business Cycle (RBC) research a few decades ago, that
was only made possible because economists chose to ignore evidence
about the nature of unemployment in recessions. There is overwhelming
evidence that in a recession employment declines because workers are
fired rather than choosing not to work, and that the resulting
increase in unemployment is involuntary (those fired would have
rather retained their job at their previous wage). Both facts are
incompatible with the RBC model.

In the RBC model
there is no problem with recessions, and no role for policy to
attempt to prevent them or bring them to an end. The business cycle
fluctuations in employment they generate are entirely voluntary. RBC
researchers wanted to build models of business cycles that had
nothing to do with sticky prices. Yet here again the evidence was
quite clear: for example data on real and nominal exchange rates
shows that aggregate prices are slow to adjust. It is true that it
took the development of New Keynesian theory to establish robust
reasons why prices might be sticky enough to generate business
cycles, but normally you do not ignore evidence (that prices are
sticky) until you have a good explanation for that evidence.

Why would
researchers try to build models of business cycles where these cycles
required no policy intervention, and ignore key evidence in doing so?
The obvious explanation is ideological. I cannot prove it was
ideological, but it is difficult to understand why - in an area which
as Noah says suffers from a lack of data - you would choose to
develop theories that ignore some of the evidence you have. The fact
that, as I argue here,
this bias may have expressed itself in the insistence on following a
particular methodology at the expense of others does not negate the
importance of that bias.

I do not think this
is just a problem in macroeconomics. David Card is a very well
respected labour economist, who was the first to present detailed
empirical evidence that imposing a minimum wage might not reduce
employment (as the standard supply and demand model would predict).
He gave an interview
some time ago (2006), where he said this about the reaction to this
work:

“I've subsequently stayed away from the minimum wage literature for
a number of reasons. First, it cost me a lot of friends. People that
I had known for many years, for instance, some of the ones I met at
my first job at the University of Chicago, became very angry or
disappointed. They thought that in publishing our work we were being
traitors to the cause of economics as a whole.”

As Card points out in the interview his research involved no
advocacy, but was simply about examining empirical evidence. So the
friends that he lost objected not to the policy position he was
taking, but to him uncovering and publishing evidence. Suppressing or
distorting evidence because it does not give the answer you want is
almost a definition of an illegitimate science.

These ex-friends of David Card are not typical of academic
economists. After all, his research was published and became seminal
in subsequent work. Theory has evolved (see again his interview) to
make sense of his findings, but unlike the case of macro the findings
were not ignored until this happened. Even in the case of macro, as
Noah says, it was New Keynesian theory that became the consensus
theory of business cycles rather than RBC models.

Yet I suspect there is a reluctance among the majority of economists
to admit that some among them may not be following the scientific
method but may instead be making choices on ideological grounds. This
is the essence of Romer’s critique, first in his own area of growth
economics and then for business cycle analysis. Denying or
marginalising the problem simply invites critics to apply to the
whole profession a criticism that only applies to a minority.

Monday, 24 October 2016

The
broadcast media in the UK, and particularly the BBC, can do an
excellent job at providing information in an accessible way. However,
the moment a subject gets politicised, this ability seems to
collapse. This is because the moment a subject becomes politicised,
the non-partisan media puts ‘balance’ above all else, which in
turn allows politics rather than reality to define what is understood
as true. I’ve called this the politicisation of truth, and have
identified four ways this happens:

Ignoring
facts: ‘shape of the earth: views differ’ type reporting.

Ignoring
expert pluralities: for uncertain outcomes, failing to mention that
one side is a minority view. The economics of Brexit is an example.

Here
is an interesting discussion of the first two of these in the context
of Brexit. From the discussion you can see that shifting existing
practice will not be easy, so in this post I want to be positive
rather than just complain.

Before
doing so, however, I want to say why this is so important. If the
broadcast media do not correct politicians when they lie, they
provide an incentive for them to lie. That will quickly become
apparent, so even if one side ‘starts it’, the other side will
follow. This creates an incentive to tell even bigger lies and so on.
In the short term the lies are believed and this distorts democracy,
and in the longer term trust in politicians deteriorates even
further.

We
saw this with Brexit, and we have seen this with Donald Trump.
Trump’s stream
of well documented lies are ‘balanced’ against seemingly baseless
or minor insinuations about Clinton. It is easy for people like those
who read this blog to think everyone knows that Trump is a serial
liar, but they do not. In fact:

“Trump has his
largest edge of the campaign as the more honest and trustworthy of
the two major candidates (50% say he is more honest and trustworthy
vs. just 35% choosing Clinton)”

If you are reading
this in the UK and thinking this could only happen in the US, who
do you think was trusted
during the Brexit campaign?

There is no
one else who can inform the majority of people what the truth is.
There are countless media organisations, think tanks and websites
designed to present a partisan view. It takes both time and knowledge
for people to find sources that can be trusted, and that is time most
people will not spend. As Stephen Cushion and Justin Lewis note,
people actively want the broadcast media to separate facts from spin,
but this popular demand is being ignored because it is drowned out by
politicos shouting about bias. As they also note, this information
has to come in prime time viewing: doing it only in specialist
programming watched by those who are already well informed completely
misses the point.

The
obvious way to avoid facts being distorted is to correct them. As
Jeremy Shapiro says in his discussion above, this has to be done in
real time. It is just no good saying we corrected that on our fact
checking website a few days later, not only because of the delay
involved but also because hardly anyone looks at that website. So,
for example, in a debate between two sides, if one side says X and X
is not true, the moderator should say so. If in an interview the
interviewee says something untrue, the interviewer should say so,
even if they want to get on to another point.

This
of course immediately gets you into questions of how does the
interviewer know what is true and where do you draw the line. Here I
have some sympathy with journalists, who are sometimes expected to
have everything at their fingertips. What academics in particular
need to do is to ensure that this information is easily available
from trusted sources, and protest when that information is ignored.

I
think those in the physical sciences understand this. For example a few years ago
there was a period in which climate change was only discussed by
broadcast media in a politicised format, where typically a climate
scientist would debate the issue with someone from denial
organisations. But with almost all climate scientists agreeing about
the fundamental facts, this ‘balance’ gave a completely distorted
view of reality. As a result of concerted pressure from scientific
bodies (and with help from MPs), the BBC finally recognised this and issued revised
guidelines. (Here
and here
(pdf) is the BBC Trust review.) Their coverage of climate change may
still not be perfect (or more seriously may have simply diminished),
but at least the BBC recognised there were cases where evidence is
more important than balance.

Academic
economists as a collective are not so well organised, and we need to
become more so. This is not about improving individual economist’s
media skills, or getting certain people regularly invited on
discussion programmes. It is about having a trusted source that can present what
the balance of views of academic economists are, and what the key
facts and arguments are, and make sure this appears in the inbox of
all the media’s key journalists. It should make letters to
newspapers signed by a long list of academic economists a thing of
the past, because economists themselves would find out what the
plurality of opinion was and make that widely known. If Brexit does
not compel academic economists to organise in this way, nothing will.
Only in this way will we stop politicians defining the public's perception
of what is true and false in economics.

Friday, 21 October 2016

I like
to treat neoliberalism not as some kind of coherent political
philosophy, but more as a set of interconnected ideas that have
become commonplace in much of our discourse. That the private sector
entrepreneur is the wealth creator, and the state typically just gets
in their way. That what is good for business is good for the economy,
even when it increases monopoly power or involves rent seeking.
Interference in business or the market, by governments or unions, is
always bad. And so on. As long as these ideas describe the dominant
ideology, no one needs to call themselves neoliberal.

I do not think
austerity could have happened on the scale that it did without this
dominance of this neoliberal ethos. Mark Blyth has described
austerity as the biggest bait and switch in history. It took two
forms. In one the financial crisis, caused by an under regulated
financial sector lending too much, led to bank bailouts that
increased public sector debt. This leads to an outcry about public
debt, rather than the financial sector. In the other the financial
crisis causes a deep recession which - as it always does - creates a
large budget deficit. Spending like drunken sailors goes the cry, we
must have austerity now.

In both cases the
nature of what was going on was pretty obvious to anyone who bothered
to find out the facts. That so few did so, which meant that the media
largely went with the austerity narrative, can be partly explained by
a neoliberal ethos. Having spent years seeing the big banks lauded as
wealth creating titans, it was difficult for many to comprehend that
their basic business model was fundamentally flawed and required a
huge implicit state subsidy. On the other hand they found it much easier to imagine that past minor
indiscretions by governments were the cause of a full blown debt crisis.

You might point out
that austerity was popular, but then so was bashing bankers. We got
austerity in spades, while bankers at worst got lightly tapped. You
could say that the Eurozone crisis was pivotal, but this would be to
ignore two key facts. The first is that austerity plans were already
well laid on the political right in both the UK and US before that
crisis. The second is that the Eurozone crisis went beyond Greece
because the ECB failed to act as every central bank should: as a
sovereign lender of last resort. It changed its mind two years later,
but I do not think it is overly cynical to say that this delay was
partly strategic. Furthermore the Greek crisis was made far worse
than it should have been because politicians used bailouts to Greece
as a cover to support their own fragile banks. Another form of bait
and switch.

While in this sense
austerity might have been a useful distraction from the problems with
neoliberalism made clear by the financial crisis, I think a more
important political motive was that it appeared to enable the more
rapid accomplishment of a key neoliberal goal: shrinking the state.
It is no coincidence that austerity typically involved cuts in
spending rather than higher taxes: the imagined imperative to cut the
deficit was used as a cover to cut government spending. I call
it deficit deceit. In that sense too austerity goes naturally with
neoliberalism.

All this suggests
that neoliberalism made 2010 austerity more likely to happen, but I
do not think you can go further and suggest that austerity was
somehow bound to happen because it was necessary to the ‘neoliberal
project’. For a start, as I said at the beginning, I do not see
neoliberalism in those functionalist terms. But more fundamentally, I
can imagine governments of the right not going down the austerity
path because they understood the damage it would do. Austerity is
partly a problem created by ideology, but it also reflects
incompetent governments that failed to listen to good economic
advice.

An interesting
question is whether the same applies to right wing governments in the
UK and US that used immigration/race as a tactic for winning power. We
now know for sure, with both Brexit and Trump, how destructive and
dangerous that tactic can be. As even the neoliberal fantasists who
voted Leave are finding out, Brexit is a major setback for
neoliberalism. Not only is it directly bad for business, it involves
(for both trade and migration) a large increase in bureaucratic
interference in market processes. To the extent she wants to take us
back to the 1950s, Theresa May’s brand of conservatism may be very
different from Margaret Thatcher’s neoliberal philosophy.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

There seem to be two
types of media outlets in both the UK and US. There are those who
push a clear right wing political agenda to those who would rather
read about celebrities or sport: the Daily Mail or Sun in the UK and
Fox News in the US. As President Obama said, if I watched Fox News
even I wouldn’t vote for me. And then there is the non-partisan
media. What values drive their coverage of political events?

I was thinking about
this after reading a comprehensive account
by Thomas Patterson of the media’s role in the rise of Donald
Trump, based on research by the Harvard Kennedy School’s
Shorenstein Center. The basic story is that the media gave Trump far
more coverage than other candidates in the crucial pre-primary
period. Furthermore, contrary to popular myth, this was not just the
cable news channels, but also papers like the New York Times and
Washington Post. The rise of Donald Trump owes a great deal to this
bias in media coverage.

The other remarkable
thing about this excess coverage, even among the established
newspapers, is that it was favourable. The term ‘favourable’
needs decoding in this context. What seems to happen involves a two
stage process. First, Trump simply gets attention by saying
outrageous things. Once his poll ratings start to rise as a result of
this publicity, he is talked about in a positive way because he is
gaining popularity.

Journalists in the
non-partisan media bend over backwards not to express personal views
on policy or character. What they do instead is treat political
contests as a horse race. It is all about who is up or down, who is
rising and falling. On top of that views are expressed on why some
candidates are doing better than others. Those who are winning
generally require explanations in terms of positive virtues: hence
the favourable treatment of Trump. Few journalists dare say that
Trump is gaining popularity because a large section of the population
is racist!

In other words,
Trump played on conventional, non-partisan news values and won big
time. He was great entertainment at first, and after that got him
noticed he became the news because the additional news coverage
helped increase his poll ratings. That news was favourable because his poll numbers were rising. In case you think this could only
happen for someone on the right, according to this research the
second part of the dynamic was even more true for Bernie Sanders. The
candidate who really suffered was Clinton.

That the media
should play such a large role in allowing someone like Donald Trump
to get so close to the White House should be a big concern for those
working in the media. The free press is supposed to help safeguard
democracy from quasi-fascists,
not make it easier for them to come to power! I wonder if part of the
problem is that the non-partisan media is also mixing politics and
entertainment. As talking about policy is not entertaining for most,
particularly if it has to be done in a ‘balanced’ way, it is more
attractive to the non-partisan media to treat politics like sport. I
cannot help feeling that if in a real horse race it was shown
that the commentary on the race had an influence on the outcome,
something would be done to change that very quickly indeed.

Monday, 17 October 2016

Should the Troika -
the Eurogroup, ECB and IMF - be concerned about how bread is sold in
Greece? You would think they had more important things to worry
about, like getting Greece out of the huge recession caused by their
own policies. But no, you would be wrong. The Troika decided that
standards specifying the weights that loaves could be sold at were a
restrictive regulation, and demanded change.

This is one of the
examples Joe Stiglitz quotes in his new book
on the Euro, which I review in the New Statesman here.
Now you might agree that at the very least this represents a
misdirection of the Troika’s energies, and more generally that it
involves unwanted interference in national sovereignty. But in Joe
Stiglitz you have one of the best economists in the world, so he also
tells you that there is a long-standing economics literature on how
regulations like these can increase competition because they
facilitate comparison shopping.

Stiglitz is very
critical of many other ‘structural reforms’ that were imposed on
Greece by the Troika. The only structural reforms that it might have
made sense for the Troika to suggest were measures that would have
moved resources into exports, thereby helping an external demand led
recovery (see Ireland or Spain). As I note,
even here Troika meddling may have had undesirable consequences.

As I said in a
recent post, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. But of the
three parts of the Troika, the IMF ought to have the knowledge to do
better. (The ECB has apparently
just created a task force to consider economic reforms.) Over 1,500
economists work at the Fund. Whether that knowledge gets to the right
people at the right time is another matter. But I suspect the main
problem at the fund is politics rather than economics. I have written
about this recently,
in the context of an Independent Evaluation Office report on the
IMF’s Troika role. Here
is a more substantive piece by Edwin Truman at the Peterson Institute
in a similar spirit.

Greece is currently
trapped in a debtor's prison created by the Troika. The Troika insist
that debts have to be repaid. The IMF knows the prisoner does not
have the ability to do this, but does not have the political will to
demand that as a result the prisoner should be released. Debt
repayment requires yet more austerity, which kills the chance of the
recovery, so even with austerity debts are not repaid. Some debt
forgiveness is probably in the interests of everyone, including the
creditors, because after a recovery Greece will be in a much better
position to pay any remaining debts. But it is politically
unattractive for the creditors, so it does not happen.

This is a disaster
for Greece, but a bad omen for Brexit. Those who advocated Leave say
it is in the Eurozone's interests to agree favorable trading terms
with the UK. To do otherwise would be to sacrifice economic interests
to make a political point. The obvious irony of course is that this is exactly what Brexit
was: sacrificing economic interests to make a political point. But
Brexiteers want to believe, in their topsy turvy way, that European leaders would
not be as reckless as they are. Greece is an example of how Europe's political leaders can also discard economic logic if it is in their own political interest to do so.

Friday, 14 October 2016

Is the Brexit
induced decline in Sterling a blessing in disguise? So argues
Ashoka Mody, and to a lesser extent
Paul Krugman. Their basic argument is that Brexit will hit the City,
and it is the City that has created an unbalanced economy and an overvalued currency. Reducing the
size of the financial sector is a necessary condition to rebalancing
the economy, and Brexit can achieve this.

Ashoka Mody’s
disdain for the City is absolutely clear. He writes: “The
banking-property complex has been a parasite on the British economy,
creating pathologies of financial vulnerability and exchange rate
overvaluation.” We can see the overvaluation in the large UK current account deficit. Paul Krugman is less pejorative. The City is just
an important UK exporter that Brexit will cut down to size, so we
will need to make other UK exporters more competitive to fill the
gap.

Neither author
disagrees that, because the depreciation of Sterling will raise
import prices (in economic speak it will lead to a deterioration in
the terms of trade), people in the UK will be poorer. But there is
also a difference in mechanisms between the two authors, which has
implications for how you view this effect. For Mody the City has
caused Sterling to be temporarily overvalued as a result of a
“finance-property bubble”. As this is a temporary effect (bubble), sterling was bound to fall at some point anyway. As a result, Brexit has only
brought forward the day that UK citizens became poorer.

Krugman on the other
hand does not argue that sterling was overvalued in this sense: the
City is just an important export industry that will particularly
suffer from Brexit. As a result, Brexit does make the average
citizen poorer permanently. But he notes that, to the extent that
this depreciation also results in a redistribution from the City to
more dispersed manufacturing, it might benefit some of the parts of
the UK that heavily voted for Brexit.

There is nothing
wrong with the logic of both arguments, as you would expect given the
authors. The key question is whether they are empirically appropriate
in this case. I have argued, prior to Brexit, that Sterling was
overvalued, and it also seems that the IMF agrees as well. The key
issue is why it was overvalued. If the reason for the
overvaluation was something Brexit has ‘cured’, then Brexit has
indeed ended that overvaluation. If Brexit has not taken away the
reason for overvaluation, then the correction to that overvaluation
has still to come.

Paul Krugman’s
logic is closer to the one I have also used in arguing that the
Brexit depreciation is a result of Brexit making it more difficult
for UK industry to export. The twist Paul applies is a distributional
one: rather than Brexit making it more difficult to export across the
board, it hits one particular industry, allowing other industries to
grow. Once again the key issue is whether Brexit does have this
distributional effect, hitting the City harder than UK manufacturing.

Suppose there is
something in what both authors suggest. I would make a very basic
point. If we wanted to cut the City down to size, we didn’t have to
achieve this using Brexit. We could instead have imposed much
stronger regulations on the UK financial sector (basically higher
capital requirements), and watch some of the industry leave in
disgust. That way we would have avoided all the additional costs that
Brexit will impose (recently restated
by the Treasury, but only now considered ‘news’ by the Times),
and with the additional benefit of having a financial sector that was
not too big to fail. My fear is that after Brexit the opposite will
happen: policymakers will go even easier on City regulation in an
effort to make up for the damage Brexit will do. So I’m still finding
it hard to see any silver lining in the Brexit decision.

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Suppose that by the
mid-2000s, immigration from the EU (and the potential for additional
immigration) had led to an important shift in the UK labour market.
The possibility of bringing labour from overseas meant that old
relationships between the tightness of labour market and wage
increases no longer held.

You might think that
was bad for workers, but that is not so. It would mean what
economists call the natural rate of unemployment (or NAIRU) has
fallen. Unemployment can be lower without leading to wage increases
that threaten the inflation target, because workers fear that the
employer can resort to finding much cheaper overseas labour. It
reduces the power of workers in the labour market, but also leads to
overall benefits. (This is just an example of the standard result
that reducing monopoly power is socially beneficial.)

But it is only good
news if the Bank of England recognises the change. If they do not, we
get stagnant wage growth and unemployment higher than it need be. The
obvious response is that the Bank will know there has been a change
because wages will start falling faster than they would expect based
on previous relationships. However that effect may be masked by the
well documented employee and employer reluctance
to actually cut nominal wages. Add in the shock of the financial
crisis, and this change in the way the labour market works might well
be missed.

Here is the big
leap. Suppose the above had happened, and the Bank of England did not
miss the change. Monetary policy would have been much more
expansionary, bringing unemployment well below the 5% mark. Nominal
wage growth would have been stronger, and a buoyant labour market
would have generated a feel good factor among workers. With more
vacancies and less unemployment, concerns about immigration would
have begun to fade. The Brexit vote would still have been close, but
would have gone the other way.

You may say how
could monetary policy be more expansionary given how close we are to
the Zero Lower Bound? If that was the case the Bank should have said
they were out of ammunition, and placed responsibility with the
government and austerity. But for the last two years at least, the
Bank could
have cut interest rates and has not. You could blame the relentless
expectation
in the media and financial sector that rates would increase, but the
Bank should be able to rise above that.

Of course the Brexit
blame game is easy to play when the vote was so tight. The most
speculative aspect of this chain of thought is the initial premise
about a shift in the NAIRU created by immigration potential. While
the possibility makes sense, whether the data backs it up is much
less clear.
Yet there is some evidence of a structural shift in the UK labour
market in the mid-2000s, as Paul Gregg and Steve Machin report.

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

In his further
thoughts
on DSGE models (or perhaps his response to those who took up his
first thoughts), Olivier Blanchard says the following:

“For conditional forecasting, i.e. to look for example at the
effects of changes in policy, more structural models are needed, but
they must fit the data closely and do not need to be religious about
micro foundations.”

He suggests that there is wide agreement about the above. I certainly
agree, but I’m not sure most academic macroeconomists do. I think
they might say that policy analysis done by academics should involve
microfounded models. Microfounded models are, by definition,
religious about microfoundations and do not fit the data closely. Academics are taught in grad school that all other models are flawed
because of the Lucas critique, an argument which assumes
that your microfounded model is correctly specified.

It is not only academics who think policy has to be done using
microfounded models. The core model used by the Bank of England is a
microfounded DSGE model. So even in this policy making institution,
their core model
does not conform to Blanchard’s prescription. (Yes, I know they
have lots of other models, but still. The Fed is closer
to Blanchard than the Bank.)

Let me be more specific. The core macromodel that many academics
would write down involves two key behavioural relationships: a
Phillips curve and an IS curve. The IS curve is purely forward
looking: consumption depends on expected future consumption. It is
derived from an infinitely lived representative consumer, which means
Ricardian Equivalence holds in this model. As a result, in this
benchmark model Ricardian Equivalence also holds. [1]

Ricardian Equivalence means that a bond financed tax cut (which will
be followed by tax increases) has no impact on consumption or output.
One stylised empirical fact that has been confirmed by study after
study is that consumers do spend quite a large proportion of any tax
cut. That they should do so is not some deep mystery, but may be
traced back to the assumption that the intertemporal consumer is
never credit constrained. In that particular sense academics’ core
model does not fit Blanchard’s prescription that it should ‘“fit
the data closely”.

Does this core model influence the way some academics think about
policy? I have written
how mainstream macroeconomics neglected before the financial crisis
the importance that shifting credit conditions had on consumption,
and speculated that this neglect owed something to the insistence on
microfoundations. That links the methodology macroeconomists use, or
more accurately their belief that other methodologies are unworthy,
to policy failures (or at least inadequacy) associated with that
crisis and its aftermath.

I wonder if the benchmark model also contributed to a resistance
among many (not a majority, but a significant minority) to using
fiscal stimulus when interest rates hit their lower bound. In the
benchmark model increases in public spending still raise output, but
some economists do worry about wasteful expenditures. For these
economists tax cuts, particularly if aimed at those who are
non-Ricardian, should be an attractive alternative means of stimulus,
but if your benchmark model says they will have no effect, I wonder
whether this (consciously or unconsciously) biases you against such
measures.

In my view, the benchmark models that academic macroeconomists carry
round in their head should be exactly the kind Blanchard describes:
aggregate equations which are consistent with the data, and which may
or may not be consistent with current microfoundations. They are the
‘useful models’ that Blanchard talked
about in his graduate textbook with Stan Fischer, although then they
were confined to chapter 10! These core models should be under
constant challenge from both partial equilibrium analysis, estimation
in all its forms and analysis using microfoundations. But when push
comes to shove, policy analysis should be done with models that are
the best we have at meeting all those challenges, and not models with
consistent microfoundations.

[1] Recognising this point, some might add some ‘rule of thumb’
consumers into the model. This is fine, as long as you do not
continue to think the model is microfounded. If these rule of thumb
consumers spend all their income because of credit constraints, what
happens when these constraints are expected to last for more than the
next period? Does the model correctly predict what would happen to
consumption if the proportion of rule of thumb consumers changes? It
does not.

Saturday, 8 October 2016

I'm glad Paul Krugman liked my General Theory of Austerity paper. But he wonders whether I might be missing something, in not explaining why Very Serious People (VSPs) in the US, or mediamacro in the UK, presume that deficit reduction is always a good thing. The constant call for deficit reduction seems to transcends party politics, and furthermore should be something that the wise always promote.

I do talk about the influence of the City/Wall Street and central banks, but perhaps there is something in addition which I talked about in a recent post: deficit bias. Keynes talked about 'practical men' who tended to absorb some of the wisdom of 'academic scribblers' of 'a few years back'. The wisdom in this case was deficit bias: the tendency that many economists discussed before the financial crisis for deficits and debt to tend to rise over time, across cycles. Perhaps VSPs and mediamacro have absorbed this particular area of academic analysis?I think you can tell a similar story about academic scribbling of years past when it comes to the roles of monetary and fiscal policy. In the UK George Osborne argued explicitly that the economic consensus was now that monetary policy should deal with stabilising output and inflation, while fiscal policy makers should look after their own deficit. I have called this the consensus assignment. If he, or his advisors, absorbed this piece of conventional wisdom, so may VSPs and mediamacro.So the headline academic scribbling was governments should control deficits, not the economy, and they are bad at it. Some of the theories put forward to explain deficit bias involve politicians knowingly deceiving voters by pretending tax cuts or spending designed to capture votes were 'affordable', and relying on general lack of understanding of the government finances to not be found out. That gives VSPs and the media more generally a clear role in providing a public service to help counteract the wickedness of politicians. VSPs might even think it was their public duty to constantly advocate deficit reduction to counter deficit bias.

As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Those of us working on the front line of monetary and fiscal interaction, or who had studied economic history or looked at the lost decade in Japan, knew the conventional assignment broke down when interest rates hit their lower bound. We knew that a liquidity trap was absolutely not the time to worry about deficits, and if you did so you would cause tremendous damage. And we were right.So if you believe this story, the lesson for VSPs and mediamacro is you really need to talk to economists in the front line more often.

Thursday, 6 October 2016

Watching the Conservative Party go full UKIP on immigration must be
like watching the Republican Party go full Trump: in retrospect perhaps inevitable but nonetheless horrifying to witness. As Ian Dunt
notes,

“During just three days they have pledged to phase out foreign
doctors, cut down on the numbers of foreign students, put landlords
in jail for not checking their tenants' residency papers and 'name
and shame' companies for hiring foreign workers.”

If the UK had a land border with France, you feel this government
would have also announced the building of a great wall. (Ireland
please note.)

With words and actions from the government like this, I feel I
desperately want to say to the many immigrants I know working hard
and contributing to this country: this is not the real England. Most
of us do not think this way. And in one sense I’m right. The Brexit
vote was about many things but it has been taken by the government as
an excuse for a hard Brexit and a demonisation of immigrants. But in
another sense I am wrong: physical attacks on immigrants have
increased sharply, and few in the media are prepared to condemn the
government’s words and actions while many cheer. [1]

Instead some prefer to highlight the uncharacteristic sight of a
Conservative Prime Minister taking some of Jeremy Corbyn’s best
lines: about how those that have suffered as a result of the
financial crisis are not those that caused that crisis, about the
inequities of crony capitalism and so on. Words that got Ed Miliband
labelled Red Ed by the right wing press. But this is also part of the
Republican play book of diversion. With the Republicans it is about
race and also immigration and religion. With today’s Conservatives
it is about immigration with a bit of race and religion. The
diversion is to pretend that inequality of incomes and power were
somehow achieved through increasing immigration, and can therefore be reduced by controlling immigration.

If May was at all serious about wanting to redistribute, her first
policy announcement would have been to replace the cuts to Universal
Credit imposed by Osborne, which will hit hard just the kind of
families she says she wants to help. Or it would have been to reverse cuts to
inheritance tax introduced by her predecessors. Instead her first big
policy announcement was to bring back segregation of schooling at 11,
a measure that could almost be designed to entrench the poor life
chances of working class families.

Even if you thought there was some genuine desire behind this latest
version of compassionate conservatism, there is a harder reality
which means it will never happen. The Conservative government is on
course for a hard Brexit with the worse kind of deal for UK business.
The strategy so far has been inept: principally giving away the UK’s
strongest negotiating card, which is invoking Article 50. Hard Brexit
will shrink the size of the national pie, and require plenty of
fiscal ‘subsidies’ to placate business and keep them here.
Furthermore cutting back on immigration will also reduce the amount
of resources the government has at its disposal. If the strategy was
to keep the high tax paying skilled immigrant and control only the
low tax paying unskilled, the government is showing a bizarre way of
pursuing that: telling overseas doctors they are welcome only for so
long as it takes for the UK to train up home grown alternatives.

At the Conservative’s conference there was only one grownup in the
room, Chancellor Hammond. He noted the appalling productivity record
of his predecessor, yet his home office colleague Amber Rudd makes
things worse by making it more difficult for universities to recruit
overseas students, one of our more successful export industries. No
wonder the markets have, through a depreciation, already
substantially cut the real incomes of every person in the UK through
sterling’s depreciation.

Which brings
us to the real problem with a focus on immigration. It is a policy
that will not achieve what the Conservative’s pretend it will
achieve, which is to make life better for UK natives. Indeed it will
almost certainly make things worse. So where do those, like the Prime
Minister, who pretend otherwise turn when things do not improve? As
we have seen in the US, they just turn up the volume, or their party
of Little Englanders just choose someone else who will shout louder.
A party that is openly prepared to say that the position of the
millions of immigrants currently living here are their best
bargaining chip in the forthcoming negotiations have already started
along that road.

If England
were a paradise among squalor all this could perhaps be understood.
But once you leave our big cities, ironically made vibrant partly
through high levels of immigration, that is just not
the case. A confident successful nation does not fear outsiders but
embraces them. What we have today is a Conservative government
protecting a dream about a glorious past as if it were today’s
reality. I am reminded of some verses from The
Last Living Rose
by PJ
Harvey:

Goddamn'
Europeans!

Take
me back to beautiful England

&
the grey, damp filthiness of ages,

fog
rolling down behind the mountains,

&
on the graveyards, and dead sea-captains.

Let
me walk through the stinking alleys

to
the music of drunken beatings,

past
the Thames River, glistening like gold

hastily
sold for nothing.

[1] My own
view is that it is our UK right wing tabloid press that is largely responsible for the popular intolerance towards migrants that we now
see. Yes fear of the ‘other’ is an easy passion to invoke, but a
responsible press would not go out of their way to invoke it. Having the ability to day after day plant stories in the minds of those who vote more and probably seek less alternative information than the average citizen remains a huge power, and those with that power use it shamelessly to great effect.